Quiroz v. Jeffrey A. Dickerson

Filing 235

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 1/21/2015 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Katie Lynn Ogden; Pla Counsel: Manuel Quiroz, Jr., Pro Se (Telephonically); Def Counsel: Jeffrey Dickerson, Pro Se (Telephonically); FTR #: FTR; Time of Hearing: 9:59:57 a.m. - 11:39:25 a.m.; Courtroom: 2. The court convenes to address pending motions. IT IS ORDERED, Plaintiff's 216 Motion seeking three separate orders is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: component "A" is DENIED; component "B" is GRANTED in part; component "C" is MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, Defendant's 220 Motion to Determine SEP Accounts Exempt is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, Defendant's 224 Emergency Request to File Under Seal, is MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, Defendant's oral motion to vacate the court's order found at Doc. # 218 , ¶ II is DENIED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MANUEL QUIROZ, JR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JEFFREY A. DICKERSON,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

3:10-cv-00657-LRH-WGC
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
January 21, 2015

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

Katie Lynn Ogden

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:

REPORTER:

FTR

Manuel Quiroz, Jr., In Pro Per (Telephonically)

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:

Jeffrey Dickerson, In Pro Per (Telephonically)

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion Hearing
9:59 a.m. Court convenes.
The court convenes to address the following motions:
I.

Defendant’s Emergency Request to File Under Seal (Doc. # 224)

Defendant Jeffrey Dickerson makes an oral motion to withdraw his Emergency Request
to File Under Seal (Doc. # 224).
In view of Mr. Dickerson’s request, Defendant’s Emergency Request to File Under Seal
(Doc. # 224) is MOOT.
The court notes for the record that the only document that has been filed under seal
relating to the issue of confidential account information is Defendant’s Reply In Support of
Motion to Determine SEP Accounts Exempt (Doc. # 234). The court finds Doc. # 234 is
properly filed under seal.
/
/
1

Minutes of Proceedings
3:10-cv-00657-LRH-WGC
January 21, 2015
II.

Defendant’s Motion to Determine SEP (Retirement) Accounts Exempt (Doc. # 220)

The court hears argument regarding the appropriateness of this court determining whether
Defendant’s SEP accounts are exempt from execution by statute.
Although Defendant Dickerson filed the motion to determine the exempt status of certain
retirement (SEP) accounts, he argues he was improperly required to do so by the court. The court
acknowledges it did direct Dickerson to do so. However, the court stated the intent was to allow
the parties to secure a ruling in advance of execution on Dickerson’s retirement (SEP) accounts,
a process which the court suggested would reduce expenses to the parties, inconvenience to third
parties and effect an expeditious resolution of the account’s status. Mr. Dickerson argues,
however, the court’s determination whether Defendant’s SEP accounts are exempt would be
more of an advisory opinion. Therefore, the court declined to enter this arena and Defendant’s
Motion to Determine SEP Accounts Exempt (Doc. # 220) is DENIED without prejudice.
Following the court’s ruling, Mr. Dickerson makes an oral motion to vacate the court’s
order found at Doc. # 218, ¶ II, relating to Defendant Dickerson being prohibited from
transferring funds out of specific retirement (SEP) accounts.
The court finds that, until there is resolution between the parties regarding any exempt or
non-exempt accounts as to Defendant Dickerson, the court’s order found at Doc. # 218, ¶ II shall
continue. Therefore, Mr. Dickerson is precluded from transferring funds out of the accounts
identified at page 2 of his opposition until further order of this court. Mr. Dickerson’s oral
motion to vacate order is DENIED.
III.

Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. # 216)

Plaintiff’s motion Doc. # 216 requests the court for three separate orders: (A) court order
requiring Defendant/Debtor Dickerson to make monthly payments toward satisfying the
judgment; (B) for assignment or “turn-over” order of monies received from Dickerson’s civil
cases; and (C) for a monthly accounting of all income received by Dickerson commencing
December 1, 2014 and thereafter.
The court addresses each topic separately and orders the following:
(A)

Plaintiff, Judgment Creditor’s request for court ordered payments from
Defendant/Debtor Dickerson toward satisfying the judgment

Plaintiff’s component “A” as to Doc. # 216 is DENIED. Plaintiff seeks the court to order
2

Minutes of Proceedings
3:10-cv-00657-LRH-WGC
January 21, 2015
Defendant Dickerson to pay Plaintiff Quiroz a certain sum of money allegedly agreed to at his
debtor’s examination (Doc. # 221-1). The court finds the agreement the parties reached at the
debtor’s examination, if any, to be vague. Additionally, the parties have failed to submit a
stipulation/proposed order relating to payments from Mr. Dickerson, as suggested by the court in
the deposition transcript found at page 34. (Doc. # 221-1).
(B)

Plaintiff, Judgment Creditor’s request for assignment or turn-over order of
monies received from Dickerson’s civil cases

Plaintiff’s component “B” as to Doc. # 216 is GRANTED in part. Mr. Dickerson is
ordered to turn-over income he may be receiving from other civil cases to the extent the funds are
not exempt. The court explains NRS 21.320 authorizes a district court to order any property of
the judgment debtor, not exempt from execution, to be applied toward the satisfaction of the
judgment.1
(C)

Plaintiff, Judgment Creditor’s request for a monthly accounting of all
income received by Dickerson commencing December 1, 2014 and
thereafter

Plaintiff’s component “C” as to Doc. # 216 is MOOT. In view of Mr. Dickerson’s
representations that he will be providing Mr. Quiroz with the accounting income information
Plaintiff is requesting, component “C” is no longer at issue.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 216) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IV.

Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Orders
The parties are advised of the following:

1. That they may file, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule IB 3-1 of the Local
Rules of Practice, specific written objections to this Order within fourteen (14) days of receipt.
These objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order” and should be
accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the District Court.
/
/

1

The parties are advised the court will enter a written order summarizing its decision as to Plaintiff’s
Doc. # 216, component “B”.

3

Minutes of Proceedings
3:10-cv-00657-LRH-WGC
January 21, 2015
2. That this Order is not an appealable order and that any notice of appeal pursuant to
Rule 4(a)(1), Fed. R. App. P., should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11:39 a.m. Court adjourns.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

4

/s/
Katie Lynn Ogden, Deputy Clerk